On Pointe

It might be a better idea to digitally restore and enhance all of the available footage of the ballet. Even that would cost a great deal, but the end product would allow serious scholars and fans to get a glimpse of the past without tying up the current company. (I wonder if any footage exists of The Figure in the Carpet, a ballet commissioned by an oriental carpet company. It had a pas de deux created for Arthur Mitchell and Mary Hinkson of the Martha Graham Company, dancing on pointe, perhaps the only time Balanchine choreographed on a black couple, to my knowledge.)

I say eccentric because a new production would probably take weeks of work for the dancers, taking time away from rehearsals of other works, and cost millions of dollars for building the sets and costumes. All for a ballet that wasn't much liked when the creator was alive, with a story and music that was despised by many. Philanthropists like to back projects that will enhance their image. Putting tons of money into projects that are likely to prove unpopular is not their usual MO. Still, producers manage to find backers for production after production of Merrily We Roll Along - a show that's never going to be a hit, despite its much-loved Sondheim score - so maybe if NYCB tries hard enough, a backer can be found for reviving Balanchine's Don Quixote.

Perhaps it would be possible and/or desirable to restage a suite of dances from Don Quixote, rather than revive the entire ballet. Farrell could curate. If she is adamant that any revival is all or nothing, most likely NYCB nor any other company will ever restage it because of the expense and deployment of resources, unless some eccentric benefactor with money to burn pops up. If her life and career had gone differently, I think that Kathryn Morgan would have made an intriguing Dulcinea.

I didn't know much about ballet or Balanchine when it premiered, but I recall that the reception for his Don Quixote was lukewarm, not considered a great success. Possibly that's why it wasn't re-staged in later years. Besides seeing NYCB's Nutcracker as a child, I remember seeing Noah and the Flood on television, which was definitely a flop. Even Balanchine had his misses from time to time.

I often stay up late at night and watch Classic Arts Showcase on cable TV, where they show a lot of "golden age" Balanchine-era NYCB, mainly from the Bell Telephone Hour and a program on French-Canadian television. (They also present oddities like Maria Tallchief and Erik Bruhn in the Don Quixote pas de deux, Lupe Serrano with Jacques D'Amboise, Lewis Christensen's Filling Station and Todd Bolender's The Still Point.) It's clear from these archival records that even during Balanchine's tenure with NYCB, the way his choreography was danced changed over the years, as he himself changed and the dancers he worked with reflected their generation. Getting former NYCB stars to coach their old roles is a great idea, in theory. One can only hope that in practice, they are able to transmit the spirit of Balanchine's choreography without trying to impose the technical inflections of their time onto today's dancers, who mostly have more pronounced turnout, higher passé positions, higher extensions, and I dare say, better port de bras and épaulement. Male dancers back then, like Eglevsky, did multiple turns with their supporting foot almost flat to the floor. (I'm not implying that today's dancers are "better" than the dancers of bygone times. A star is a star is a star. Stylistic differences don't change that.) When I first moved to NYC, I studied with a famous couple who trained their daughter to dance exactly the way they had danced in their heyday. While she had an impressive technique, she was virtually uncastable with dancers her age, as she looked like she had stepped off the pages of a history book. While no doubt there are many fans who would love to see mid-1970s stagings of Balanchine's work, maybe they should remember that he himself said that, "Ballet belongs to a dancer who is right now in front of your face." Most of NYCB's dancers were born long after Balanchine died. They are going to interpret his work in their own way, no matter who stages it.

I think it's understandable that once Ms. Waterbury fell into the email rabbit hole she would continue to read what she found. But by including in her suit identifying, embarrassing information about other people, including women who did nothing to harm her, she exhibits animosity and a lack of respect for the privacy rights of others.

I wouldn't characterize the belief that Ramasar and Catazaro have been caught up in somebody else's dispute as "pernicious". You either believe it or you don't. Considering that Catazaro did not receive or look at any photos of Waterbury, and has no apparent connection to her dispute with Finlay, it seems to be a reasonable position, although obviously others disagree. Everyone involved is an adult - Catazaro has no obligation to chide Finlay about his language, and the expectation that he would do so in a text message seems unrealistic. It appears from the complaint that Ms. Waterbury did more than just stumble across a couple of messages. She must have scrolled down and taken screenshots of numerous exchanges, including those that did not refer to her. She may not have intended to "snoop", but one could argue that she did anyway. A judge will decide whether she was justified in doing so.

I should have been more clear that I was being ironic when I used the term "redeemed". Of course these men are not redeemed, except possibly in their own heads.

Considering the credible allegations against him, the only redemption suitable for Harvey Weinstein should involve many years in the penitentiary. So far, Les Moonves' "redemption" seems to be taking $100,000,000 from CBS as opposed to $120,000,000, after his alleged physical attacks on women, and his attempts (with some success) to destroy the careers of Janet Jackson, Ileana Douglas and Linda Bloodworth Thomason. James Levine feels so redeemed he's suing the Met for wrongful termination. Louis CK is already back on the comedy club curcuit. For a certain type of powerful man, like Brett Kavanaugh, there are few consequences for bad behavior. Finlay has resigned, so he can't be drummed out of NYCB. Surely there must be something Ramasar and Catazaro can do that will allow them to continue their careers. They are not accused of physically abusing anyone, making sexual demands, or trying to destroy anyone's career. They are also not walking away with millions of dollars. Perhaps personal apologies to the company dancers and a promise to do better. Ramasar has already expressed contrition. (I would add an apology to Ms. Waterbury, from Ramasar, not Catazaro, but because she's suing them it might be a bad legal move.)

Levine allegedly had many victims, and some of them were singers and players in the employ of the Met and other organizations where he had a leadership position. The story on the Philharmonic firings is out there, it's just not getting any traction in the mainstream press. (It's a lot worse than anything involving the dancers.) It is amazing, considering our litigious culture, that none of the people abused by Levine have sued him or the Met, where, unlike NYCB, Levine's sexual misconduct was known and gossiped about for years, and where, unlike Ramasar and Catazaro, he had direct control over the careers of his subordinates.

Just from a few Instagram messages, it's clear that there is no unanimous reaction from the company dancers to the firings. No doubt there are some young male dancers who are quite happy about their enhanced opportunities. I don't know how many donors have threatened to withdraw support, but donors don't have to abide by union rules, and they don't run the company. If some drop their support, that's a problem for the company to overcome. I'm sure they are quite happy to lose Longhitano's money, which he apparently gave in order to fuel his fantasies.

The statement was defensive and unnecessary, so it's a good thing that it didn't really say anything. The singers and players at the Met have made no group statement about Levine, the musicians at the Philharmonic have made no statement regarding the firing of two principal musicians. The ballet community, including the dance press, appears to be overestimating the effect of the Waterbury affair on the public, hence the virtue-signalling speech. It is an internal matter, important to (some) dancers, but of very little significance to the rest of the world. It's likely that a number of NYCB dancers don't care one way or the other about the firings.

These assertions have yet to be adjudicated legally. It's not even clear from the lawsuit that all of the photo sharing was non-consensual. Having no access to the inner workings of NYCB, I don't know if other employees were disciplined, but it would be indefensible for only Ramasar and Catazaro to be fired when allegedly more co-workers were involved.

AGMA might have objected to the suspensions if they had been asked to do so. Apparently Ramasar and Catazaro did not go to the union and contest NYCB's initial actions. There are other NYCB employees mentioned in the lawsuit. If they were not also fired, it bolsters the principal dancers' position that they should not have lost their jobs. Of course, if the other employees were stage hands and/or musicians, as members of far more powerful unions than AGMA, it would be a lot harder to fire them. That some female dancers felt uncomfortable being partnered by Ramasar and Catazaro is no justification for their termination. They are professionals in the performing arts, where artists work with people they don't like all the time. If in fact NYCB fired the dancers because of complaints about their private communications, they have set themselves up for being sued by Ramasar and Catazaro, who would have a far stronger case than Waterbury. After James Levine was fired from the Met, after years of rumors of despicable behavior on his part, corroborated by several of his alleged victims, he sued the company for over $5,000,000 for wrongful termination. (The Met is countersuing.) Ramasar and Catazaro are not accused of abusive behavior in the workplace, and compared to the published material ascribed to the current nominee to the Supreme Court, their private communications are pretty small beer - pardon the Kavanaugh pun.

The NYCB audience may find this excitingly different, but this solo strikes me as generic black gay male choreography, of a type that's been around for forty years. While Taylor Stanley dances it very cleanly, I've seen more dynamic performances of these phrases from Broadway and modern dancers. I'm very happy to see a black choreographer get a commission from NYCB, but this work didn't impress me. I guess you had to be there.

The statement makes sense until the last paragraph, where, in my opinion, it is a mistake to specifically cite NYCB. Ms. Waterbury is not making a workplace allegation of sexual harassment and even if NYCB dancers were making such allegations, calling out a specific company by name while investigation is ongoing could be construed as prejudicial to one or more parties involved. No one doubts that AGMA condemns sexual abuse and harassment. This statement, beyond informing members of a new method of reporting, is unnecessary.

While NYC children tend to be very self-reliant and use public transportation all of the time, it's still unusual for an eleven year old to go to work on the subway alone at night. (I remember an interview with Amar Ramasar where he recalled that, when he was about twelve, his mother showed him how to use the subway to get from the Bronx to SAB by himself, once. After that, he was on his own.) Producers of shows with child actors often make special accommodations for them, like setting aside a room for them to do their homework, or splitting big roles between two or three children, like the title role in Billy Elliott. There is usually an assistant stage manager or cast member tasked with keeping an eye on them - a dark backstage area can be dangerous. And being children, they are apt to get into mischief - I worked on a show where a stagehand broke his leg while protecting a child. When I was an active union councillor, the well-being of child actors was a great concern of mine. I have worked with children who were the main support of their families, which didn't mean they were treated kindly by their parents. None of this applies to apprentices of NYCB, who may be too young to drink, but are otherwise old enough to fend for themselves. And why not - many of them have been living in dorms in NYC while at SAB from a very young age. College freshmen are usually around the same age as the apprentices, and every year thousands of them are sent far away from home to go to school. Some of them have been known to go to a wild party or two as well.

Is there evidence of a backlash against Ms. Waterbury? All I have seen is universal praise and support for her. Members of NYCB are wise not to speak out about an ongoing lawsuit, and have likely been ordered not to by management, an almost universal practice when corporations are sued. As a member of two performers' unions, I am concerned about the rights of the union members involved, especially what I consider the unjust termination of Zachary Catazaro. Questioning elements of the Waterbury complaint does not constitute a backlash. The court will determine if reading Finlay's text messages is snooping. But reading a romantic partner's private communications is almost guaranteed to end badly, even when there is no reason to suspect any nefarious activity.

There is very little supervision required in New York for stage children of any age. When she was starring in Annie on Broadway at age eleven, Sarah Jessica Parker used to take the subway and the bus to the theater by herself. In California, you have very strict rules on movie and TV sets regarding hours worked and on set education, but not in New York. At any rate anyone old enough to be an apprentice at NYCB is too old to be supervised. The reality is nobody chaperones seventeen year old kids working in fast food either.

I'm sorry, but your meaning is very unclear to me, as regards this case. I was referring to the women, referenced in the suit, who willingly engaged in sexual activities. While Ms. Waterbury's image was shared without her knowledge, there is no claim in the suit of anyone being raped, assaulted or beaten. ETA there is mention of an alleged rape within the company, but it has nothing to do with Finlay-Waterbury or my comments. Ms. Waterbury is the one doing the suing. I am discussing the elements in her lawsuit, not the alleged behavior overall. Her case against the defendants would be just as strong without mentioning the other women. When the defendants respond, I doubt that the consensual activity of the other women will be brought up. It's irrelevant.

I make no claim that Waterbury is "primarily" to blame. But she includes allegations about the actions of women that were not necessary to state her case, and even where she doesn't use names, she includes information that makes their identity apparent.

What about the privacy rights of all the people, whose names are not currently revealed in the suit, who will be exposed and humiliated if this discovery goes forward? For example, the alleged domestic abuser's victim, who has nothing to do with Finlay-Waterbury, should not have her personal troubles used to prop up this claim. There are women, alleged in the suit to have been involved in consensual sexual activities, who no doubt would prefer not to be named. (The latest version of the suit removes one name, but you can't unring a bell.) They didn't take or distribute photos of Waterbury. Some of them are not even in NYCB. In the name of female empowerment, Ms. Waterbury is hurting a lot of women.

Actually under Actors Equity rules, you can be called back many times, but after the third audition, you have to be paid for each one. Some actors refuse to play the game, even when paid, and they tell the producers that they've seen enough of their talent to make a decision. Often they end up getting the role.

The Waterbury suit puts forth a lot of inside information about goings on at NYCB. Who told her about Stafford noticing alcohol on Finlay's breath; how did she know about the dancer with the domestic violence incident; how does she know about the alleged rape; how did she know who was at a company party in DC? She can't possibly know these things first hand. She wasn't there. She seems to be repeating gossip, which may or may not hold up in court, in order to paint the company in a negative light.

All that you posted is sadly too true, about colleges and the military. However Ms. Waterbury and Merson could not cite even one comparable case, even anonymously, at SAB. There is little evidence that there is systemic, widespread sexual misconduct occurring at the school. Just because it happens elsewhere does not mean the SAB staff needs to do some kind of soul searching and interrogation at their school. Any sexual activity at the school appears to be entirely consensual, between students, and while the school may frown on it, there's little they can or should do about it. And no, I don't think there are any systemic issues at NYCB that can be addressed by management. Adults are going to behave like adults, which means they will sometimes behave badly. It's got nothing to do with the "culture" of ballet. Ms. Waterbury's personal problem with a boyfriend who happens to be a ballet dancer is not a ballet issue. It's a Chase Finlay issue.